Starks - Breakaway Speed?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harry Sydney is fucking annoying and has no clue what he is talking about half the time.

Not sure what you are refering to specifically, but I really disagree with this. If Sydney is annoying, its because he rubs homers the wrong way, he's not a fan. He knows his stuff.

[pbmax]

Not sure what you are refering to specifically, but I really disagree with this. If Sydney is annoying, its because he rubs homers the wrong way, he's not a fan. He knows his stuff.

He is downplaying Sydney's contention (as per an earlier JH post) about Grant being steady, as opposed to the feast or famine back, who either gets long runs or gets next to nothing.

I don't think Grant delivers a blow when running generally. That doesn't mean he can't at times, but mainly he gets what's blocked. I do agree with JH's translation of Sydney in that he generally makes good decisions about which hole and when. But he does not run people over and he does not break his way to the second or third level. I see Grant go down on first contact too often. Its not a crisis, he usually falls forward, but its limited.

Starks may not have a top gear, but he punishes people and really moves a pile while going forward at the end. If the Packer's must have a back that will not break many long runs, I prefer Starks to Grant. However, Grant is tremendous at protecting the football, something Starks will need to demonstrate before he would be allowed to take the job full time this year.

[Brandon494]

Not sure what you are refering to specifically, but I really disagree with this. If Sydney is annoying, its because he rubs homers the wrong way, he's not a fan. He knows his stuff.

Well I find the way he talks very annoying and he use to bash TT back in the day so he must not know that much. I seriously won't even listen to the show if I know hes going to be on it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I've never heard Sydney talk. I can't even remember whether I agree with him much or not, but I remember reading his column somewhere and thught it was .... smart. He is opinionated and willing to ruffle feathers. I thought he backed up his opinions well, but maybe he was wrong a lot.

[King Friday]

I'm hoping Grant and Starks can be this team's Levens and Bennett from our 96 SB team.

You could cut off an arm from both Levens and Bennett and they would still both be more prolific in the passing game than either Grant or Starks will be. From a purely running standpoint, you may be right in that both groups are north/south runners who usually get the most of what is given to them. However, Grant/Starks has no chance at making the impact on the offense that Levens/Bennett did in the mid 90s because the offenses are completely different. Holmgren's RBs were what made the WCO go by providing a continual threat in the flat to keep DEs and OLBs honest. Our current offense hardly even utilizes the backs in the passing game, which I feel is due to their lack of ability as receivers. McAllister caught a good number of passes early in his career in a McCarthy directed offense, so it isn't like MM is prone to ignoring a capable receiving threat in the backfield.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You could cut off an arm from both Levens and Bennett and they would still both be more prolific in the passing game than either Grant or Starks will be.

as membership chair of the James Starks Fan Club I have to take great exception. Starks can catch. We'll have to see.

[King Friday]

as membership chair of the James Starks Fan Club I have to take great exception. Starks can catch. We'll have to see.

Perhaps, but the guy only has 5 NFL receptions to his credit so far...so he's got a ways to go from reaching Levens/Bennett territory.

[VegasPackFan]

I see Starks as the kind of guy that you think he is tackled and then he gets 7-10 more yards and you wonder how he managed to do that. I have always seen Grant as a good open field runner but he goes down at contact.

[Partial]

But Peterson and Johnson can?

Based on combine data: Jamaal Charles (4.38), Reggie Bush (4.37), C.J. Spiller (4.27), Darren McFadden (4.33), and Jahvid Best (4.34) are all faster than Adrian Peterson (4.40). None of them have the combination of "physical" and "fast" that Peterson has shown, but "running away from a CB" is about speed, not power.

Combine shombine. Johnson and Peterson are ridiculously fast. AP is not getting caught from behind if it's Usain Bolt chasing him. Some people have an extra gear that only gets invoked when needed. AP and Johnson are those guys. Football speed in pads on a field and training for a sprint on a track are two very different things.

edit: Okay, Usain Bolt will probably catch him, but c'mon, AP is a monster and ridiculously fast. I have no doubt he's as fast as any of the guys listed.

[Lurker64]

Just because some guy is ridiculously fast doesn't mean that some other guy isn't also ridiculously fast and faster than the first guy. Spiller is easily faster than Peterson, but Spiller is 5-11 196 and Peterson is 6-2 217... obviously Peterson is a more effective runner and overall a better player, but that doesn't mean he's faster than Spiller.

All of those people (Peterson, Johnson, Charles, Bush, Spiller, McFadden, and Best) are ridiculously fast. Some are faster than others. The really good football players there are Peterson and Johnson (and probably Charles).

[HarveyWallbangers]

AP is not getting caught from behind if it's Usain Bolt chasing him.

Peterson gets caught from behind. Not often, but a fair amount of times. I thought he actually lost a little of his "deep speed" since his first or second year, but sadly he looks great this preseason. Even during his rookie season, Nick Collins caught him from behind. (And I felt like that was Peterson at his fastest.) There are guys faster than Peterson. Not many faster than Johnson.

See 1:37

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d802d2d9c/Packers-23-Vikings-16

[HarveyWallbangers]

Phillip Buchanan caught him from behind also.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81433d3c/WK-10-Can-t-Miss-Play-Buchanon-punch-out

[RashanGary]

Buncha homers here. Starks is a punishing back?

Nah, he's good and fine, about like Grant. He's not going to be some Packer great or even greater than Grant has been for us. We all bitch and whine about Grant getting tackled, and I do it too, but he gets in there and churns out yards (unlike Brandon Jackson last year.) In our offense, 2nd and 7 / 3rd and 4 is a valuable thing. We don't need a star RB. We need a guy who can keep AR in managable down and distance. Until Grant went down, we had that. When Grant went down, our offense suffered until Starks showed up. That contrast from Jackson to Starks was no greater than the contrast for Grant to Jackson. We just ended up winning the SB and everyone has starry eyes about Starks because he was there for the ride but mostly because he wasn't Brandon Jackson.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I actually think Grant has a lot of ability (pretty fast, good one cut guy, decisive, relatively big), but he's always left me thinking he could be better. He often hits the wrong hole (lacks vision at times), and he often goes down too easily on first contact. Nevertheless, he's been solid. I don't think Starks will be an all-time Packer great, but I think he has a bit more potential as an all around RB than Grant. Mainly because I think he can be similar as a runner but he should be much better as a receiver. I just don't think he'll last with his upright running style. He's already taken a few huge shots this preseason. He could last, but I'd say the odds are against him.

[Harlan Huckleby]

He often hits the wrong hole (lacks vision at times), and he often goes down too easily on first contact.

Yes. Of course the stats don't lie, Grant has been very productive, and Starks will be hard-pressed to match his yardage. Starks is a little younger than Grant, hopefully he can fill Grant's shoes someday, if not better him.